At approximately12:00 PM,a LAPD officer shot a man near the intersection of 6th and Stanford in the Skid Row neighborhood. According to individuals who were standing around the scene as well as those with whom I talked later in various neighborhood gathering spots, a man, considered to be in his early 50's, was asked to stop and be questioned by two passing motorcycle officers. The man complied.
The officers approached the man and it was then, according to witnesses, that the man removed a large knife from his pocket and brandished it. Everyone with whom I talked agrees on those facts. From that point on there is not a unanamous version of the facts. According to some witnesses, the police officers told the man to drop the knife several times. He did not comply while hurling obscenities at the police officers. (It was widely believed that the man suffered from mental illness.) The man, according to some witnesses, lunged at the police officers in an apparent attempt to attack them.
Others state that the man did not attempt to attack the police officers. Some people believed that there was enough distance between the man and the police officers so that the officers were not in danger. Others believe that there was not sufficient distance believe the officers and the man. In any case, according to those who talked with me, the man was shot twice; once in the chest and once in the leg. The above photos were taken at approximately 3:00PM where there were still numerous investigators at the cordoned of intersection.
3 comments:
Look around the Internet for the "Tueller Drill."
It's a shooting drill that shows that a person with a knife or any edged or impact weapon (hammer, baseball bat, ax, shovel, screwdriver, etc) is a direct and imminent threat to you if that person is within 7 yards.
Most police officers are trained that a person with a knife who is closer than 7 yards can stab or cut them before they can stop them with a gun.
I run a version of the Tueller Drill with every single CCW student I get.
Most of them, even with the gun already in hand, cannot hit a target twice before the "assailant" can cover 10 yards.
Cutting that distance down to around 7 yards takes lots of practice and training.
So, heck yeah "primitive" weapons are deadly weapons.
All the attacker has to do is get within 7 yards before rushing you and you can easily wind up toast.
I have heard of that drill. Danny Inosanto, a very reputable martial arts instructor, explain to my martial arts class about distance and accuracy. Apparently he taught a class to the Los Angeles Police Department. He did an experiment with a man charging officers from a starting point. the officers would have their guns holstered. The purpose was to see what was the minimum distance it took for an officer to have enough recognition time and reponse time to perform the procedures of drawing his weapon and shooting accurately. I believe the experiment started at 5 feet. No one was able release the weapon and fire accurately. The officers would move back until they got back to 15 feet where only one officer was able to perform the drill. He immediately released his weapon and crouched into the firing position. That officer was a Vietnam veteran with three tours of intense combat experience. the rest of the officers had to move to an average of 20 feet before they were accurate in performing the necessary survival protocals.
I remembered the issue about distance/safety when I was writing the piece. That is why I mentioned how some say the officers were not safe and others say they were. but that was not enough.
I should have stated specifically that I did not know the distance.
I should have also have pointed out that experiment to which I was exposed and site the findings of it. because obviously there is ignorance about these things and that ignorance can turn into emotionally charge opinions based on imperfect information and understanding. I should have taken the time to point that drill out.
thank you very much. I attempted to be fair in my relating the facts but I was not good enough. I had the tools to educate as well. I wasn't thinking as well as I thought I was. I hope there is no next time but in the event there is, I will extend my thinking further as to what needs to be included in reporting incidents. Thank you for giving me a lesson.
Post a Comment